You already do very well, but what about investigating the soon to be many independents that will be standing, the who, the why, and the where, cos the times, they are a changing.
Would love to see more analysis of how consistent (or not) govt & other parties’ policies are across different areas, not just isolated policies. For example, govt policy on social media claims to be about kid welfare, but what do their other policies/actions say about their commitment to children?
Education. Teach about what climate change means in scientific terms, how we measure it and how we communicate that effectively. It should be every day's headline.
A lot more views from women, children and young adults. Having looked a lot at AI recently-because it is sucking money from film and tv production- these voices are missing when big decisions are made.
Exactly. Take what he says and explain what that would actually do to the country. Not that numbnuts who vote for care about facts but at least we have it on record that 'we told you so'.
I am super sick of polls/horse race reporting - who's in front etc. We need accountability! Journos need to persist with questioning when pollies try to turn questions aside. Lies and spin need to be challenged.
More info about independents (not so much the Teals/Climate 200 assisted ones but the others who might be Trojan horses for the major parties/preference harvesters/RWNJs/Christian/fascists/etc. In the local council elections it was impossible to find info, in this next election we need more of them
Journalists who are prepared to counter the bs talking points with facts and hard hitting follow up questions in media conferences. Yes, Prime Minister, in opposition/while campaigning your policy was X, why have you now implemented Y?
Also, ask which lobbyists helped inform/draft this legislation.
A bit of background to stories, how they relate to other similar issues, historical context if relevant, or what solutions are based on. This helps people understand the importance and relevance of the news. As an example, Rachel Maddow does this very well.
I think we're going to struggle until we face into mandating changes to social media algorithms built on the narrow outcome of increasing engagement, because engagement is largely driven by ever increasing outrage and lies.
Hi Amy
Love your work.
The background.
Asking politicians to account for changes/new policy and why. Asking to see the research.
Using the word research properly.
Those in power seem to build a narrative to suit the decision instead of showing the research.
We have ARC they are rarely quoted.
In depth,not necc. long. Showing ACTUAL motivations & inside info. that we don't have access to. NO opinion pieces. No exaggerating.Don't try to force everything into narratives. Start with overview, & go in toward detail. Statistics NOT anecdotes. Examples are ok once facts are established.
BBC style robust journalism, with well-researched tough, challenging questions, and tenacious pursuit of answers.
And…real-time fact checking of claims, statements, and assertions made by those interviewed
A friend recently asked if I could talk to her smart 17 year old daughter about the world - she’s depressed about climate and politics,
They don’t cover it in school, she can’t get good information, she feels lost,
Where is the media of truth and hope, how do kids learn and put knowledge into action
Break out of the neo-liberal mind cage,
Almost all the assumptions about politics, economics and society are built on flawed ideas,
Report from a lens of radical action against this false worldview,
Keep coming back to community, social democracy and sustainability as foundations for policy
Unfortunately, the basics have been degraded so far any improvement will be welcome. Follow up questions. Less ability 4 pollies to skate through on word salads. Collegiality with indies. FOI follow through. One important story consistently reported, even with no 'news'. Remind us what emperor wears
A diversity of backgrounds and experiences from the journalists (not commentators) involved. Critical analysis and calling out attempts to deceive, or non-factual statements. Analysis, not commentary. Call out hypocrisy and inconsistency. Actively assess and measure bias.
No more allowing politicians to just spew stuff - letting a ton of unchallenged bs flood the air. We’re sick of them barefaced lying in real-time with no consequence. The Graham Richardson attitude to lying is a dinosaur. So - just don’t be Sunrise.
I would like in-depth information about issues with the pros and cons discussed. I want information from someone I trust so I can make informed decisions.
Calling out lies immediately, or if not possible, then fact-checking after the interview and then a follow-up piece. more diversity (less cafe owners and landlords); more experts who haven't been proven wrong repeatedly (no more coatsworth)
Question politicians based on past statements and policies. Seek explanations for change. Also, hyperlocal issues that show good and bad of policy outcomes.
If a reporter has a follow up question and the Polly tells them one question only, the next reporter should ask that exact follow up question. Don’t let the pricks get away with controlling the questions they get asked.
Historical context around policies and perhaps individuals is sometimes thin on the ground.
I think it could be valuable and interesting but not really sure what it would like against articles that do deep dives.
Historical context is most important, especially in these times.
So many myths and lies have been fed into auspol history and are still taken as fact years after historians have revealed the whole truth.
Agree with this.
For example, we often accept paradigms like monetarism as if it is the last word, and the day to day reporting never shifts from that framework.
The readers deserve a wider perspective.
The things we believe with certainty today are probably wrong.
A regular segment that goes back to look at Royal Commission findings and recommendations, and how so many of them are sitting on shelves gathering dust. We spend millions on them, get good recommendations, but it comes to nought.
Less focus on the micro, the squabbles, the negotiations and more on broad themes, with some backgrounding. So x bill, top arguments for, top arguments against, who came up with, etc. Something for people who don't live and breathe this stuff but want to be informed quickly.
I'd also love a one pager on all members - what have they done, obstructed, what do they want to do? I also don't want to read any of the childish comments any politician makes, no quotes. I don't care what they say, just what they've done, or failed to do.
Finally, related stats. As an example, if a pollie suggests a ban on trans women using the bathroom, every mention should include the percentage of the population that it would affect (because it's a tiny non issue as well as just being needlessly mean). Ditto "youth" crime, sudanese "gangs", etc.
We don't need to hear what some idiot says, we need to know is it actually a problem? If so how big? What do experts say? As far as I'm concerned politicians could be replaced by an app, let's stop giving them oxygen please.
A deep dive into post political life, jobs for ex politicians particularly ministers is long overdue.
That is where the real political corruption in Australian politics lies. Not in the relatively small amounts donated to the parties and candidates.
A total end to "gotcha" politics would be a great start.
Then media holding politicians from all sides to account, and actually doing their own investigations rather than just trusting pollies they're paid to agree with.
Lots more, but that would be a start.
Not the second guessing and unsubstantiated inuendo . EPA bill case in point
"Reported"(paraphrasing)as "Albo does the dirt on Plibersek". or "Albo lets Politics (WA) get in the road of progress" etc. What really matters is Sen. Lambie and Sen. Tyrrells position.
Nary a whisper.
There needs to be more push back to politicians when they spout falsehoods. I know people will claim it's confrontational or that the journalist is taking the "other side" but it would at least stop me from yelling at the screen saying "tell them they're lying!"
Would like to see a "what they said they were doing" vs "what they actually did" segment, e.g. Bowen says the government has "laser focus" on emissions, approves more FF for export.
Physical fights?
Pollie Cage Fighting?
Let's talk about the impact of policy on the community?
Heterodox economics analysis
No fucking lobbyists (that's an adjective Simon Benson)
I’d like an addiction to the usual “consensus for policy x amongst experts”, to also have an ex-APS person who can speak to whether policy “x” can be implemented in a way to actually achieve the hoped for outcome, and if not, what would need to change in the dept to make it happen.
I would also like something similar to Stigmawatch, the SANE program that calls out stigma & biased reportage about mental health, as well as good reportage about the same. Especially when politics intersects with issues of race, gender, sexuality, religion & the disability sector.
Across media, stop sanewashing politicians like drunk Barnaby, Babet & of course Trump et al. Review analyse comment on the appalling things they say. Show that the Emperor is naked.
When it comes to politics slurs related to intelligence r a huge barrier to engaging people. On top all the others. It'd be great if we stopped using them.
One of the things that frustrated me about US election was that when Trump proposed something utterly outrageous, nobody asked him for the mechanics of such a proposal. Ie how he plans to end Russia/Ukraine war in one day. Same here... Mechanics of policy. Particularly Dutton's nuclear nonsense.
A podcast similar to This is Politics US/UK. You and an impartial ex-insider. No-one springs to mind immediately, but there has to be someone who can parse the information impartially.
Serious analysis of how politicians make laws. I think many would benefit from a better understanding of the process from idea, Bill, House of Reps, Senate and Royal Assent by the GG. On the success of protests against Bills across the years. And Preferential voting - because it’s misunderstood. 😎
Make sure you have your facts straight.
Call out lying as lying not “falsehoods.”
Question content not what the “opposition has said.”
In depth analysis rather than click bait.
Headings match content.
Correct English (not ending sentences with a preposition.)
Make it make sense.
(1) Coverage in Australia of politics is treated often about the politicians and who will gain lose etc. Even most responses here to your skeet are ‘ask the pollies’. Forget about them. They will answer in a predictable way. Let’s take the example of refugees. Since the Tampa is all about ...
(2) Which side of politics will gain or lose “another boat arrives in Australia! This is a problem for the ALP and will benefit the LNP” and that’s it. No examination on WHY this benefits one side or the other. What is about US as Australians that allows politicians to exploit this?
(3) As with taxation and other financial policies that constantly seem to favour a certain band of voters which comparing others are fairly well off. What does it say about Australia that politics needs to do this to stay in power? How does this reflect the idea of an egalitarian Australia?...
(4) Is this sort of stuff that is not covered much. And if it is inevitably if end up as again as ‘this will advantage one side or the other’ Or even worse in leadership speculation (that the political journos love). It does not tell us much about how our politics reflects us as a society
Insiders worked with Barry as it was more about exposing decision making of both pollies and journos but Speers thinks its about giving insiders an opportunity to push an agenda. 2 out of 10 now, unwatchable
Nothing based on both sidesism. I prefer my journalism “If someone says it’s raining, and another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out the f*cking window and find out which is true”
Get some Kids involved , it seems their lives will be impacted more than ours by policies (or lack of them) by the current crop of Living Fossils running the government now.
Not yet , the regulations need to be written and get through a change in government (indi balance of power) before implementation in Dec 2025 .
Labor are the ones selling the instant change myth .
Dutton will say anything to get elected. No lie is too fantastic or ridiculous for Peter! In fact I fully expect him to tell us that 'we're eating the dawgs, we're eating the cats, we're eating the pets of the people who live here!..........
in Queensland, probably. 😏
Truth and facts, getting to the answer of a question rather than obfuscation, not publishing lies but calling it out directly in the reporting without repeating their words. Using simple phrasing, not words purposefully open to interpretation. It’s not an English Literature analysis exercise.
Compare the 2: what pollies say juxtaposed with (to?) science, evidence, policy expertise, what has categorically worked elsewhere. (ie what Frank and fearless public servants used to do)
I've reconsidered.
Interviewing politicians is a bit pointless as we will never get frank honest answers.
So don't bother.
Others have made the suggestion of a media platform that analyses policy with experts & science/fact/data.
Make the goal helping voters to understand policy without spin.
Interviewers calling out non-answers/ word salads
"You have refused to answer the question clearly & concisely. Let's move on"
Mind you, they'll never agree to an interview again.
The Tangle newsletter is doing something interesting and increasingly important - rebuilding a basis for discussion of issues. https://www.readtangle.com
Also my god, nobody serious about political science uses the terms “Left” and “Right” as any meaningful reference. They’re not even remotely useful. Very much need to unpack this and reframe how we approach policy.
If we must use a binary, it’s “Neoliberalism” (focus on individual rights) and “NeoMarxism” which emphasises greater social needs and factors intersectional struggles.
However. Even the US DoD has a climate change policy. They’re what refers as “NeoRealist” which takes a zero sum analysis to
I’d like to see journalists prosecute issues more fully. Digesting only sensational headlines is breeding ignorance and fuelling madmen. I don’t know how you solve that Amy but thanks for asking.
The politically engaged know where to get independent media but the general population determine elections.
A small public TV channel to reach the grass roots? Both fun and serious formats extracting the detail. You would be a great host Amy and Greg. Also Kerry O’Brien, Mark Kenny, Laura Tingle.
Context, no false balance, efforts to reach a broad audience, moderated reasoned debate between experts, connection between local and international situations, govt funding of private schools over public, attention on religious groups tax free situation/influence in politics/assets/legal structure.
Policies-what Govt is doing, what opposition will do. Much less opposition nit picking (both sides). What independents/greens want. Financial-$given for what in return (openness). Unbiased policy analysis incl climate change, pandemic, renewable energy, industrial, education, migration.
Some actual honesty in reporting and not just journalist's opinions.
Less of Dutton, Ley, Taylor and the rest of the LNP front bench. And they need to be called out when they quote facts that are obviously not true.
I want to see a Gruen approach. I want to see the good, bad & ugly, when we are seeing propaganda/PR/bias and why. I want to see who has been bought by interest groups (this applies to journo's too)
If any politician does not answer your question respectfully and appropriately just shut down the interview immediately.
Prevent them from getting airtime.
More scrutiny of their diaries and who gets their time. Who are the lobbyists they meet with when considering policy decisions? Who has their ear when they respond to world events Timelines of who is influencing them leading up to decisions that impact us all.
Actually thinking again we need something pretty low brow, super entertaining that can cut through to people that are completely disengaged with politics. Needs to be impartial. No point preaching to the converted. See if Mr Beast is available.
Sadly, isn't this often dictated by clicks and ratings? Personally I'd like to see less opinion and more objective reporting on govt. achievements and failures, and fact checking on both sides with everyone being held to account by an impartial media.. that, or more cartoons.
Questioning the assumptions that underly what is presented as normal. eg. There’s a core assumption that the western worldview that governs Australia’s global alliances (and determines things like which organisations are classified as terrorist orgs) is right and good.
Indeed, and over the years from Abbott, there have been several articles written by economists in mostly I guess, the more reliable ‘on-line’ media outlets, such as Ind.Aust/AIMN/MichaelWest/Conversation, etc and there was one from SMH - found it
Fewer fucking cafe owners' opinions treated as being in some way important, and less (ie no) emphasis on how X or Y policy will play in Western Sydney.
Rather than reporting what’s politically good or good for the politician talk about the impact on the country and the people and not on election- ability
Or just don't cover/interview as though conservatives are natural governors and that Labor has to always prove itself fit and perfect. It's a poorly kept secret of our country's polity and almost everyone subconsciously thinks this way ....
More in-depth, forensic, high, researched accuracy, #propaganda busting. Transparency in framing & underlying assumptions & values framework underpinning copy/content especially opinion, analysis. Staying with stories way past orthodox news cycles. More historical contexts. #journalism #democracy
Always explain exactly who someone is and their background before an interview or panel discussion. No more unrevealed memberships, payments, allegiances....
Stop interviewing politicians.
Talk to experienced experts in their field because they do know what they are talking about. . . not just what the ‘boss’ told them to say.
Hear hear. The politicians keep to the Party line. Repeat repeat. Waste of time listening to them most of the time. They don’t give a straight answer to anything.
What can you say about Dan Tehan? An ugly man in every way. He’s on a power trip currently seeing himself as possible Prime Minister. In same category as IPA boys Josh Frydenberg, Tim Wilson and James Paterson. Nasty, nasty creeps. How does Liberal Party dig up these fascist fanatics?
An agenda of political discussion that's not set by the mastheads. It's not that I don't care what's in the Oz, but I don't think it should set the parameters of what's important enough to be discussed each week.
Call out and criticise garbage ideas and policies. Don’t treat those policies seriously and give them coverage. When a politician lies, engages in rorts or corruption. Don’t help them reinvent themselves. They have disgraced themselves and while in public office should remain disgraced.
PROS & CONS
1. When talking about a policy or idea they must present both pros & cons to show why they think it will work and for who. Don’t just give us spin.
2. When opposing a policy or idea they must say why it is good about it before slamming cons down our throat.
Most importantly... truth, the actual truth about what happened, not somebody's biased, self-interested, agenda-laden opinions. Less name-calling, more fact checking. It is OK to disagree, but it's not OK to resort to barbarity.
Follow ups. A year after a law was passed, or a new policy introduced, what has the effect been? How does this compare to what was promised or intended? What do big-picture experts say, and those at the coal face?
International comparisons. If a policy contemplated here has been tried elsewhere, how did it work there? What are the similarities or differences in context that would affect how it will play out here?
Finally, and perhaps most importantly: don’t cover announcements as an interesting thing in themselves. A report should follow through the logical implications of a policy. How much will it cost (in one year, not ten)? What options will it close off? How will it be enforced, and by whom? Etc.
Would love to see interviewees fact-checked in real time. This would mean that journalists be well read and informed, and not just tools reading press releases.
Yes I want to
know more about this. It’s a real worry. I don’t think I’ve heard much about Advance in the main stream media. However I hardly read/ see/ listen to mainstream.
Advance(Fair)Aust, supported by IPA/CIS/AtlasNetwork/Libs/CPAC - all working to give the billionaires more power in the direction this nation is taken - eg the Rise&Rise of GinaRinehart!
I just felt a rise of anger listening to this:
You'll need to look them up. Capitalists with a network of over 500 junk tanks around the world, that they use for propoganda. Brexit, Climate Demialism, Liberatarism, Conservative religion backed.
Return to democratic role and purpose of 4th estate. Marginalise rather than elevate self-serving and disingenuous voices, especially those serving the far-Right. Link everything back to democratic values and principles of equity and equality.
Thank you for the difference you make. I'd like to hear Politicians who are lying being called out on their lies. I'd like journalists to persist with questions even when politicians try to avoid answering them. I'd like balance so we can make informed decisions when we vote.
Yes I’d like to know this. Where’s the analysis of what got passed, what it means, why were they all passed at the last minute? Should they have been passed ages ago but people were playing silly games, or does it mean rushed policy with no robust input? I can’t tell and would like to be informed!
I believe majority f them have been presented over a long period of time with plenty of analysis, but constant NO from Dutton and Mob. He knows how successful Abbott’s Negativity was & it suits him perfectly.We know about most - @Greens also obstructionist, til last minute.
Except it’s decided ‘aim’ ofDominantConservative-Main StreamMedia,owned byMillionaire/Billionaire RWingers intent on gaining power over people, as has happened in USA.Check out AtlasNetwork,with the many World &Aust think-tanks(IPA/CPAC/CIS/AdvanceAus&political orgs,seeking to impose their ideology
No, they're supposed to have "fair and balanced" reporting which becomes a problem when the major parties are billionaire simps who lie through their teeth to appease donors and the ABC takes "fair and balanced" to mean report what both say unquestionably
no horse race calling (all the others only do that)
maybe we need
1 - lots of context, explaining actions/positions taken/backs stabbed etc.
2 - not much that depends on "access"
3 - critique from p.o.v. of everyone who is not "in the game" & not either those who own the country and it's government
Real experts engaged to discuss issues that matter and why- rather than race calling shallowness that never gets to the heat of the issue and focuses on conflict.
The most reliable, informative media out there is Behind The News. It doesn't assume its audience understands the issues. It explains the history. Leave the 24 hour news cycle alone; focus on analysing and explanation, not knee jerk reactions. That's where the need is.
Amy, it would be good to get some critical analysis of what is said by politicians instead of just a parroting of their remarks. Push back on untruths and stop their obvious obfuscation of the truth.
Lies called lies and attached to the person telling the lie.
"Peter Dutton lied today about immigration when he said..."
Putting out his statement and then the actual truth gives his statement equal weight. Calling it a lie up front sets the appropriate context to what he's saying. Context is king.
Programs about the exchange of ideas & civil discussion are also totally missing from Australian media.
(Any programs have been bastardised to now be focused on conflict & spectacle NOT civil discussion & ideas. Or have been canned like Big Ideas or The Drum).
If Pocock/anyone in parliament is so freaking serious about climate, why are we getting this tripe, and what can the community do about it? These are meant to be the lifesavers of democracy. 🌏🗑️🔥
#AusPol
YouTube content, ie Majority Report style (maybe not that much content) but I think the Australian market is too small to be profitable solely on local politics.
Push for a show on SBS to rival the woefully bad 'Insiders' on the Sunday 9am slot.The LNP has constantly attacked the ABC and over nearly a decade in power,stacked the board with their appointees. SBS seems to have gone under their radar, so we've had a couple of years of fairly unbiased reporting
Focus on systems and how people interact with them. Are they easy to use, equitable, working, cost effective?
Then speak to experts. What do other places do?
Then speak to politicians. Maybe.
Don't write claim/counter-claim. Either someone is wrong or it is nuanced. Tell us about the nuance.
I guess with the way modern media works it might require you to cover some issues later than others have whilst being able to say. 'I 100% can be trusted on the accuracy of this article"
Less interviews with politicians: they've been media trained to a point where you might as well be interviewing a "press 1 for denial" phone machine. More from respected and long standing experts about the ramifications - as a nation we cop it in the bum too often from political nonsense.
I would like to see more real time questions to politicians telling lies. It seems the modern presser or even studio interview allows them to get away without accountability
Comments
Taa, in advance 🙏
Promotion of good decisions.
Fair criticism of bad decisions.
Ridiculous
Julia Zemiro did hers in cars. 🚗
Maybe a walk thru gardens is a good way to get better interaction, with the odd “ambush”? 😁 🌼
Also, ask which lobbyists helped inform/draft this legislation.
Love your work.
The background.
Asking politicians to account for changes/new policy and why. Asking to see the research.
Using the word research properly.
Those in power seem to build a narrative to suit the decision instead of showing the research.
We have ARC they are rarely quoted.
And…real-time fact checking of claims, statements, and assertions made by those interviewed
They don’t cover it in school, she can’t get good information, she feels lost,
Where is the media of truth and hope, how do kids learn and put knowledge into action
Almost all the assumptions about politics, economics and society are built on flawed ideas,
Report from a lens of radical action against this false worldview,
Keep coming back to community, social democracy and sustainability as foundations for policy
But, most importantly: Without the leash of ABC lawyers that Media Watch must always keep in mind.
Push back against lies and misinformation. Fact checking in the article not after the fact.
I think it could be valuable and interesting but not really sure what it would like against articles that do deep dives.
Historical context is most important, especially in these times.
So many myths and lies have been fed into auspol history and are still taken as fact years after historians have revealed the whole truth.
For example, we often accept paradigms like monetarism as if it is the last word, and the day to day reporting never shifts from that framework.
The readers deserve a wider perspective.
The things we believe with certainty today are probably wrong.
That is where the real political corruption in Australian politics lies. Not in the relatively small amounts donated to the parties and candidates.
Then media holding politicians from all sides to account, and actually doing their own investigations rather than just trusting pollies they're paid to agree with.
Lots more, but that would be a start.
"Reported"(paraphrasing)as "Albo does the dirt on Plibersek". or "Albo lets Politics (WA) get in the road of progress" etc. What really matters is Sen. Lambie and Sen. Tyrrells position.
Nary a whisper.
Would like to see a "what they said they were doing" vs "what they actually did" segment, e.g. Bowen says the government has "laser focus" on emissions, approves more FF for export.
Pollie Cage Fighting?
Let's talk about the impact of policy on the community?
Heterodox economics analysis
No fucking lobbyists (that's an adjective Simon Benson)
More analysis less commentary, please
More facts, fewer opinions
But Pollie Cage Fighting prefered above all
Non dickheads providing the above.
Bahahahahaha 😂
*mutters* frickin unicorns he wants
(I agree with all you said)
I agree with many - the truth, transparency!
Also, some background into how our political system works - you’re surely not surprised at the ignorance of that!
Finally, a discourse that allows Australians to develop a vision for this country beyond the Duopoly, that serves voters!
Call out lying as lying not “falsehoods.”
Question content not what the “opposition has said.”
In depth analysis rather than click bait.
Headings match content.
Correct English (not ending sentences with a preposition.)
Make it make sense.
Ask a question, get an answer without rambling BS. Be persistent.
Realtime factchecking.
The last thing we need is another Canberra bubble bath filled with LNP sycophants.
It feels like a Morrison-esque performance, yuck
🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅 rating on truth vs spin from press conferences and announcements. All parties and Independents. #truthvspin
LNP lies are swallowed without question
ALP face such hostility they don’t get to explain their policy
ABC RN had 45 min lectures on farting, base load electricity generation in 2005
Like many Australians with a university degree I want in depth analysis from experts like I see in Michael West & Pearls & Irritations which I pay for
Labor are the ones selling the instant change myth .
"That's a lie " every time Dutton speaks..😆
Or perhaps they just hold it down the moment Dutton opens his mouth.
#DuttonLies
#LNPNeverAgain
in Queensland, probably. 😏
Interviewing politicians is a bit pointless as we will never get frank honest answers.
So don't bother.
Others have made the suggestion of a media platform that analyses policy with experts & science/fact/data.
Make the goal helping voters to understand policy without spin.
"You have refused to answer the question clearly & concisely. Let's move on"
Mind you, they'll never agree to an interview again.
Highlight outcomes of both good, average & bad policy.
Good journalist, editors and producers should be driving the daily news priorities, not politicians.
Don’t respond or publish fluff.
Stop the both sides stuff on climate change, it’s real. What are the needed actions.
literally First Year undergraduate unit of study for the most basic political theory, how economic indicators are used to frame ideologies
However. Even the US DoD has a climate change policy. They’re what refers as “NeoRealist” which takes a zero sum analysis to
A small public TV channel to reach the grass roots? Both fun and serious formats extracting the detail. You would be a great host Amy and Greg. Also Kerry O’Brien, Mark Kenny, Laura Tingle.
Less of Dutton, Ley, Taylor and the rest of the LNP front bench. And they need to be called out when they quote facts that are obviously not true.
Prevent them from getting airtime.
https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/exploding-the-myth-of-the-coalition-as-a-sound-economic-manager-20190509-p51lk2.html
1. Call a spade a spade and a lie a lie.
2. Identify underlying motives.
3. Tie decisions to donations.
4. Don’t act as a stenographer.
5. Don’t both sides things for the sake of it.
6. Don’t write stories from press releases.
Talk to experienced experts in their field because they do know what they are talking about. . . not just what the ‘boss’ told them to say.
1. When talking about a policy or idea they must present both pros & cons to show why they think it will work and for who. Don’t just give us spin.
2. When opposing a policy or idea they must say why it is good about it before slamming cons down our throat.
An example is whistleblower protections.
Another is Robodebt accountability.
The NACC isn’t really - ALP/LNP stitched that up shamelessly - but it would be good to expose why it isn’t working.
The RCs into war crimes another.
The list goes on…
Just human answers.
And don’t let the politicians not answer a question and move on to something else
Then the same but five years later.
This is both important raw material to make public AND the basis for better contextual reporting.
Just because a politician says something doesn’t mean it is worthy of reporting.
https://jointhedots.au/groups/228
know more about this. It’s a real worry. I don’t think I’ve heard much about Advance in the main stream media. However I hardly read/ see/ listen to mainstream.
I just felt a rise of anger listening to this:
Gina Rinehart's Bush Summit Speech
Eg Turnbull and Sharma instrumental in setting up defence matériel agreements with Israeli defence firms.
https://jointhedots.au/groups/1599
There were changes to family law yet I can’t see anyone reporting on what those changes were and what they will mean
The best you can do is openly acknowledge your own
maybe we need
1 - lots of context, explaining actions/positions taken/backs stabbed etc.
2 - not much that depends on "access"
3 - critique from p.o.v. of everyone who is not "in the game" & not either those who own the country and it's government
Graphs that show the big picture like this...
Politics is not a sport. Stop treating it like it is.
Stop reporting lies as something someone said. Straight up say so and so lied today when they said ……….. make the lie the story
It's a bit unorthodox
BUT
The truth Amy!
WHAT
You always give us....
Change the two party narrative.
Labor has screwed us all by mucking up the disinformation bill
"Peter Dutton lied today about immigration when he said..."
Putting out his statement and then the actual truth gives his statement equal weight. Calling it a lie up front sets the appropriate context to what he's saying. Context is king.
(Any programs have been bastardised to now be focused on conflict & spectacle NOT civil discussion & ideas. Or have been canned like Big Ideas or The Drum).
#AusPol
Stick it to Murdoch media.
Then speak to experts. What do other places do?
Then speak to politicians. Maybe.
Don't write claim/counter-claim. Either someone is wrong or it is nuanced. Tell us about the nuance.
2. Something real.
3. Even handed.
So sick of one team getting a free pass.
Also not treating politics as the match of the day. Less sound bites and more critical analysis
Statement fact or lie.
Etc.